Publisher's Synopsis
More so than in the past, the US is now embracing the logic of preventive force: using military force to counter potential threats around the globe before they have fully materialised. While popular with individuals who seek to avoid too many 'boots on the ground,' preventive force is controversial because of its potential for unnecessary collateral damage. Who decides what threats are 'imminent'? Is there an international legal basis to kill or harm individuals who have a connection to that threat? Do the benefits of preventive force justify the costs? And, perhaps most importantly, is the US setting a dangerous international precedent?
